Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (211847)	1/5/2007 5:27:51 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, that depends how you see it. My opinion is something in the middle. I don't really want to support dictators, unless our national security is absolutely dependent on their existence- and Saddam's existence helped save Iraqi lives (by staving off civil war), and probably also helped stave off regional war- though that may be more open to debate- although I've pretty much made up my mind that he was a bulwark against Iranian machinations, but I'm not sure he was necessary to the US. So, seeing that Saddam was not absolutely necessary to Us interests (in the way I see them), I would not have supported him, but I wouldn't have invaded the country to depose him because I always thought that would make things worse for the US, for the Iraqis, and for the region. If you look up my posts from before the war you'll see my major fears were civil war, theocracy, and the chances of a dictator even more brutal than Saddam. IF we get a trifecta we might get all of those things, and regional war to boot. This is my analysis, and nothing you have said changes it.